This update from The Hill doesn’t sound encouraging. A bipartisan group in the Senate have met for weeks to hash out some needed reforms to the Electoral Count Act and firming up protections for election workers in the wake of the 2020 debacle. Among the areas of broad agreement are restrictions on challenges to electors and a formal recognition of the already-extant ceremonial role played by the Vice President.

With that much consensus, one would expect both caucuses to tread lightly and avoid interference or disruption. Instead, Senate Democratic leadership felt it necessary to announce its own proposal for ECA reform:

A group of Senate Democrats on Tuesday unveiled legislation that would reform an 1887 election law that has been in the spotlight in the wake of the 2020 election.

The proposal — from Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, Rules Committee Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) — would clarify that the vice president’s role overseeing the formal counting of the Electoral College vote is ceremonial. …

It also increases the number of lawmakers in the House and Senate that need to support an objection before both chambers must vote on it. Currently, it just takes one member from the House and Senate, the legislation would increase it to one-third of both chambers. It also increases the threshold for upholding the objection from a simple majority in both chambers to three-fifths in both chambers.

Let’s not forget that Durbin’s more than just the current Judiciary chair. He’s also the #2 position in Senate Democrat leadership. This isn’t just a handful of members going rogue — it’s a deliberate gambit.

What it isn’t is a formal proposal, at least not yet anyway:

The legislation isn’t finalized, and the senators labeled it a “discussion draft.” But they added that they thought the proposal “serves as a foundational outline for key reforms that address the shortcomings of the 1887 law.”

So why drop this into the mix now? Five days ago, Politico reported that Chuck Schumer wanted to give the bipartisan group some “breathing room.” Schumer hadn’t “committed” to working with the bipartisan group led in part by Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Jeanne Shaeen, but Collins warned Schumer at the time to back off, too. Perhaps this triggered Schumer into forcing the point:

“There are some who want to revisit the voting reforms that were not passed. I’m not among those. I would like to do our best to come up with a bipartisan bill that could garner 60 or more votes,” Collins said. When it comes to reviving pieces of Democrats’ election reform package, she added, “there is not consensus, at all, on whether that should be part of any agreement that we’re able to reach.”

The timing of this release of an incomplete proposal makes it look like a brushback to Collins, which certainly won’t advance the bipartisan effort. It’s also weak sauce, as described by The Hill. Why bother taking up a challenge for debate with only a third of both caucuses’ support? It should require a majority vote to open debate and a supermajority to sustain the objection, if indeed Congress should do it at all. Constitutionally, states certify electors, not Congress, and it’s not Congress’ role to interfere with a certified slate of electors. If the candidates have problems with the certified results, those should be handled in court. Otherwise, Congress should have no role at all in recognizing the legitimacy of electors except in the exceedingly rare instance in which a state certifies competing slates of electors.

If Senate Democrats want a real solution, propose new language in the ECA to make those limitations explicit. That solves all the problems of 2020, including the ridiculous posturing of irresponsible legislators and one irresponsible president that claimed Congress could constitutionally overturn and/or reject electors to change the outcome of a presidential election. That wouldn’t just affirm the Vice President’s ceremonial role, but also Congress’ ceremonial role in counting electors with just the one narrow and rare exception.

Instead, Senate Democrats decided on a publicity stunt to nibble at the problem rather than just wait for a 16-member bipartisan group to work through the issues. Looks like the Democrats are getting pretty desperate for some kind of win in this session, in this case attempting to steal credit for what has been a responsible and bipartisan discussion. If Durbin and his pals want to contribute to a solution, they should quietly confer with the Collins/Shaheen group. Failing that, they should take every opportunity to keep their mouths shut.